The multiverse is real....

BidenPresident said:
Multiverse.
Click to expand...

Multiverse can't possibly mean the same thing.

Uni means that there's only one--it includes everything, known or unknown, considered or not considered.

Multi can never mean the same thing as uni. They're opposites.

Am I the last man standing who gives a damn about precise language?

I'm actually not. My son is the same way.



There was a time in the beautiful neighborhood of my youth

where expressing something the wrong way in business

could get one killed.

Simpler, better times in my view. People had manners. I liked that.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Multiverse can't possibly mean the same thing.

Uni means that there's only one--it includes everything, known or unknown, considered or not considered.

Multi can never mean the same thing as uni. They're opposites.

Am I the last man standing who gives a damn about precise language?

I'm actually not. My son is the same way.



There was a time in the beautiful neighborhood of my youth

where expressing something the wrong way in business

could get one killed.

Simpler, better times in my view. People had manners. I liked that.
Click to expand...

You are unable to understand the concept of multiverse. Instead of trying, you just repeat yourself.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
I don't like mangling words.

"Universe" means everything, so it can't be a subset of multiverse.

It's not science. It's vocabulary.
Click to expand...
^^^
Not very scientific. :)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/universe
UNIVERSE
1: the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated : COSMOS: such as
a: a systematic whole held to arise by and persist through the direct intervention of divine power
b: the world of human experience
c(1): the entire celestial cosmos
Click to expand...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cosmos
COSMOS
1 a: UNIVERSE sense 1
b(1): an orderly harmonious systematic universe
compare CHAOS
(2): ORDER, HARMONY
2: a complex orderly self-inclusive system
Click to expand...
 
BidenPresident said:
You are unable to understand the concept of multiverse. Instead of trying, you just repeat yourself.
Click to expand...


You're wrong.

Even if this "multiverse" actually exists--

it very well might

and I don't actually care, even a little bit, if it does or does not--

it doesn't replace the meaning of "universe."

Why are people interested in speculating about such things

so disinterested in respecting the precise use of words?
 
NiftyNiblick said:
You're wrong.

Even if this "multiverse" actually exists--

it very well might

and I don't actually care, even a little bit, if it does or does not--

it doesn't replace the meaning of "universe."

Why are people interested in speculating about such things

so disinterested in respecting the precise use of words?
Click to expand...

“The theory describes many copies of what we think of as ‘the universe,’ ” Carroll writes, “each slightly different, but each truly real in some sense.” If you want to know where these branches are, he says, “There is no ‘place’ where those branches are hiding; they simply exist simultaneously, along with our own, effectively out of contact with it.”

Many Worlds is a well-known quantum interpretation, originated in the 1950s by American physicist Hugh Everett III. It was mostly ignored for a long time. But in recent decades, many physicists have found it (or variants of it) preferable to the traditional view of quantum mechanics associated with Danish physicist Niels Bohr.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/sean-carroll-something-deeply-hidden-quantum-physics-many-worlds
 
Cypress said:
It's fine if you want to point to the Big Bang as a moment of creation. There's nothing wrong with that opinion. It's just not a fact, because technically the Big Bang theory doesn't prove an origin. It only proves that the universe was once at Planck density before it inflated. We don't know how long it was at Planck density, because unknown physics are involved at those temperatures and densities.


I sometimes feel like inflation and the multiverse were convenient ways to sweep the facts of a finely tuned universe under the rug. But I don't think physicists invented inflation and the multiverse on a whim. They were almost dragged kicking and screaming into seeing it as a plausible hypothesis, because it really does explain certain observations about an expanding universe.
Click to expand...

Agreed; we can only go back to the beginning, not before. Yak is willing to stop at the beginning and go no further.
 
BidenPresident said:
“The theory describes many copies of what we think of as ‘the universe,’ ” Carroll writes
Click to expand...


What we think of as the universe?

Being literal isn't about what people think.

Literacy isn't about giving a fat fuck what people think

Being literal is using words in a way that they mean the exact same thing to everybody using them.

It's a requisite for precise communication.

If a person cannot understand the concept of universal-inclusion in a word,

that level of intelligence isn't that to which I'd be turning

to hear scholarly theories.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
What we think of as the universe?

Being literal isn't about what people think.

Literacy isn't about giving a fat fuck what people think

Being literal is using words in a way that they mean the exact same thing to everybody using them.

It's a requisite for precise communication.

If a person cannot understand the concept of universal-inclusion in a word,

that level of intelligence isn't that to which I'd be turning

to hear scholarly theories.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are complaining about.
 
Cypress said:
... just not in the way you think it is.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the video. Agreed with Carroll that, even if multiverses exist, we only exist in this one. Although I'm still inclined to believe that "every possibility of action exists in another universe", I have no doubt that it's this Universe, as Carroll mentioned, where I'll feel the results of whatever decision I make.

Kind of silly, but yesterday I was spreading some Bermuda grass seed before the rains. At the end, I took the time to completely empty the package by turning it inside out and shaking out the 4-5 seeds stuck inside and pondered the downline consequences of such an action. No, I wasn't under the influence, just in a ponderous mood.

Every action we take does have downline consequences. Some manner, some don't. The people who get T-boned in an intersection might have avoided the accident had they left home 5 minutes earlier or 5 minutes later. As Carroll pointed out, this is where the Serenity Prayer comes in. We do the best we can and hope for the best.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Multiverse can't possibly mean the same thing.

Uni means that there's only one--it includes everything, known or unknown, considered or not considered.

Multi can never mean the same thing as uni. They're opposites.

Am I the last man standing who gives a damn about precise language?

I'm actually not. My son is the same way.



There was a time in the beautiful neighborhood of my youth

where expressing something the wrong way in business

could get one killed.

Simpler, better times in my view. People had manners. I liked that.
Click to expand...

We have to start thinking about how we talk about words based on new information.

200 years ago everyone thought time meant a rate of measurement immutable, static, uniform.
But it's not. Time is neither uniform nor immutable to any given observer.

I think we might as well say that the universe as we concieve it is everything created by the Big bang. But we are starting to think there are alternate quantum realities or a multiverse outside this conventional reality.
 
BidenPresident said:
I have no idea what you are complaining about.
Click to expand...

And therein lies the problem, BP.

You were never taught how to speak precisely,

nor is your comprehension the best either.

I'm sorry to be so direct,

but trying to communicate with you is frustrating.

An intelligent person would understand EXACTLY that about which I'm speaking.

My own kids would have understood by the age of six at the latest.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
And therein lies the problem, BP.

You were never taught how to speak precisely,

nor is your comprehension the best either.

I'm sorry to be so direct,

but trying to communicate with you is frustrating.

An intelligent person would understand EXACTLY that about which I'm speaking.

My own kids would have understood by the age of six at the latest.
Click to expand...

You are the last person on the forum to claim intellectual integrity. On a thread about the philosopher Aristotle, you talked about a restaurant.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Thanks for the video. Agreed with Carroll that, even if multiverses exist, we only exist in this one. Although I'm still inclined to believe that "every possibility of action exists in another universe", I have no doubt that it's this Universe, as Carroll mentioned, where I'll feel the results of whatever decision I make.

Kind of silly, but yesterday I was spreading some Bermuda grass seed before the rains. At the end, I took the time to completely empty the package by turning it inside out and shaking out the 4-5 seeds stuck inside and pondered the downline consequences of such an action. No, I wasn't under the influence, just in a ponderous mood.

Every action we take does have downline consequences. Some manner, some don't. The people who get T-boned in an intersection might have avoided the accident had they left home 5 minutes earlier or 5 minutes later. As Carroll pointed out, this is where the Serenity Prayer comes in. We do the best we can and hope for the best.
Click to expand...

Or if a butterfly flaps it's wings, does it cause a rain shower in Beijing?

I liked that Star Trek episode where Worf was shifting through different quantum realities.

I like Sean Carroll a lot because he is not only a reputable physicist, but he thinks philosophically too.
 
Cypress said:
Or if a butterfly flaps it's wings, does it cause a rain shower in Beijing?

I liked that Star Trek episode where Worf was shifting through different quantum realities.

I like Sean Carroll a lot because he is not only a reputable physicist, but he thinks philosophically too.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The chaos theory crossed my mind although I don't understand the math part. Little actions can have big consequences...or not. We don't know, so, again, we can only do the best we can.

Agreed on Carroll. I'd never heard of him before. Thanks!
 
Cypress said:
We have to start thinking about how we talk about words based on new information.

200 years ago everyone thought time meant a rate of measurement immutable, static, uniform.
But it's not. Time is neither uniform nor immutable to any given observer.

I think we might as well say that the universe as we concieve it is everything created by the Big bang. But we are starting to think there are alternate quantum realities or a multiverse outside this conventional reality.
Click to expand...


Don't you understand, Cypress, that you're trying to tell me what I mean?

I honestly don't care too much about either astronomy or the advent of physical matter.

I care about the English language.


Everything--known--unknown-
considered-not considered--
discovered--not discovered--
previously postulated--not previously postulated--
discussed--not discussed--
studied--not studied--
cared about--not cared about--
proven--unproven--

is included in the English word "universe."

It's a word, not a scientific or philosophical concept.

It's an English word with a meaning.

New scientific theories don't get to change the meaning of a word.

Why am I the only one understanding this? It's exasperating.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Don't you understand, Cypress, that you're trying to tell me what I mean?

I honestly don't care too much about either astronomy or the advent of physical matter.

I care about the English language.


Everything--known--unknown-
considered-not considered--
discovered--not discovered--
previously postulated--not previously postulated--
discussed--not discussed--
studied--not studied--
cared about--not cared about--
proven--unproven--

is included in the English word "universe."

It's a word, not a scientific or philosophical concept.

It's an English word with a meaning.

New scientific theories don't get to change the meaning of a word.

Why am I the only one understanding this? It's exasperating.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, that's the way it is in science. Words in science sometimes don't have precisely the same meaning they do in colloquial English. Heat and velocity in colloquial English don't neccesarily mean the same thing as they do in scientific lexicon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top